Corroboration strengthens a particular piece of evidence like extra judicial confession but that would not mean to say that where there is no corroboration it has always to be rejected. In case extra judicial confession and the other evidence inspires confidence, then there is nothing in law that prohibits accepting the same and then passing appropriate orders. So far the plea that FIR is later in point of time and or genesis of the crime having been with-held by the prosecution is concerned, both cannot be accepted. Whatever material was collected has been put before the court during the course of investigation and there is no ground made out to discard the same and or to take another view of the same. [Para 31]

Advocates who appeared in this case :
Ms. Mandeep Reen, Advocate for the Appellant
Mr. P.C. Sharma, Advocate for Respondent

Cases referred : Chronological
1. Chandubhai Shanabhai Parmar v. The State of Gujarat AIR 1982 SC 1022
2. Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 350
3. Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1989 SC 1890
4. State of Haryana v. Ved Prakash AIR 1994 SC 468
5. Sakharam Shankar Bansode v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1994 SC 1594
6. Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1996 SC 607
7. Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab AIR 1999 SC 215

This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the then learned Sessions Judge, Jammu in File No.105/Sessions dated 10-01-195. By means of impugned judgment appellant was held quilty for having committed offence under section 304 Part-I RPC for killing her husband and his mistress. Trial court has convicted her to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment whereof appellant has been ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

Prosecution was launched against the appellant on the allegations that she alongwith her late husband Jagdish Singh migrated from Kahsmir valley to Jammu. They were tenants of deceased Darshan Kour at Digiana, Jammu. Further case of the prosecution was that deceased Jagdish Singh and Darshan Kour were having illicit relations. Deceased lady was a young widow and the appellant alongwith her husband were her tenants in her house. It is further made out from the prosecution evidence that both husband and wife were living by themselves and there was no other family member residing with them.

On the other hand it has come on record that deceased Darshan Kour was a young widow and was residing in her house alongwith her children , two of whom namely Sukhvir Singh and Jatinder Singh though minors have appeared as PWs in the case. It is also established from the circumstances of this case that charred bodies of Jagdish singh and Darshan Kour were recovered from the same room i.e., which was under the tenancy of appellant and her late husband. Medical evidence established that the burns on the body of Jagdish Singh were found to the extent of 90% and in case of Darshan Kour were to the extent of 96%. In this background prosecution claims that on the night of 28ht October ’93 appellant poured kerosense Oil on the bed whereon both the deceased were fast asleep and then they were set on fire by her. With a view to put an end to the lives of both of them, she is alleged to have bolted the door of this room from outside so that they are not able to come out of it.

At the same time she is also alleged to have bolted the door of the room from outside where children of deceased Darshan Kour were in sound asleep. As already noted her two minor sons have appeared as prosecution witnesses.

Case came to be registered at the police station on the basis of a reliable telephonic information regarding the occurrance in question, whereafter police machinery swung into motion. After commission of the offence appellant is alleged to have informed PW Tirlok Singh regarding her having committed the offence in question on account of extra marital affair and sexual intimacy between both the deceased. This PW reported the matter to police on telephone and contacted some of his neighbours so that the fire is put off and house saved.

When Tirlok Singh alongwith neighbours went on the spot, door of the room was found closed from outside. It was opened, Charred bodies of both the deceased were found near the door. At the same time room of the door where children of Darshan Kour, deceased were sleepinng wa also found locked from outside.

In the aforesaid background, after completing the investigation and collecting the materials relating to case in question, at the conclusion of the same appellant was sent for facing trial. Besides other evidence, motive made out in the circumstances of this case was that the deceased husband of appellant was having illicit relationship with deceased Darshan Kour, landlady and with a view to take revenge of their such illicit relationship, the offence is alleged to have been committed by the appellant. After committal, trial court was satisfied that there is enough material to proceed against her, charges were framed by the court below, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

During the course of trial prosecution examined number of witnesses, recorded statement of the appellant under section 342 as well as that of her son-in-law Manjeet Singh as defence witness and thereafter found her guilty as pointed out hereinabove.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the entire prosecution case hinges around the so called extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant to PW Tirlok Singh. According to her, wife of Tirlok Singh and Darshan Kour were real sisters, thus he is an interested witness. Similarly FIR has also been questioned as according to her genesis of the crime having been with-held by the prosecution. On the other hand stand of the appellant appears to be that at the time of commission of the offence she was not at her residence and was elsewhere, thus she has put up the plea of alibi. Onus of this issue was heavy upon her. As such it was on her to have brought reliable, cogent and trustworthy evidence to establish that she was not at the place of occurrence and was elsewhere. With this and is view she has examined her son-in-law as DW. Contradictions in the statements of PWs have also been highlighted, particularly in the statement of PW Tirlok Singh and ASI Jaswant Singh, the Investigating Officer, and it was pleaded on this basis that the prosecution case was liable to be thrown out. By not doing so trial court has fallen into error, as such it was urged that the appeal deserves to be allowed.

On the other hand, all these pleas have been controverted by Sh. P.C.Sharma learned Government Advocate, who urged that there is enough and foolproof evidence produced by the prosecution. According to him extra judicial confession was voluntary as well as spontaneous. He further pointed out that probable reason for the same having been made by the appellant after occurrence to PW Tirlok Singh appears to be one i.e. pangs of guilt may have compelled her to do so. He further urged that plea of alibi was for the first time put by the appellant in her statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. and thereafter when when she examined her son-in-law as defence witness. In case this was the actual position, then PW Tirlok Singh was to be cross-examined on that aspect. Similar was his submission with reference to the statement of investigating officer, PW Jaswant Singh. There is no suggestion to those two PWs when grilling cross-examination was directed to them. Thus he prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

It may also be noted here that during the pendency of this appeal appellant has filed Cr.M.P. No.58/2000. On 03-04-2000 it was ordered to be taken up alongwith the main appeal.

In the face of this affidavit plea urged by the learned counsel that son of Tirlok Singh was involved in the murder of husband of deceased Darshan Kour does not prima facie hold good.

Sole question that needs determination in this appeal is whether the appellant had gone to his daughter’s place as stated by her for the first time in her statment under section 342 Cr.P.C. as well as by defence witnes Manjeet Singh,her son-in-law or she was present at the spot and has committed theoffence.

When a reference is made to the entire prosecution evidence as well as their cross-examination while they were in witness box during the course of trial, no suggestion any whatsoever was given on behalf of the appellant to any of the prosecution witness. In this behalf it may also be observed that in case plea of alibi is established by cogent and reliable evidence, this court is bound to accept the same.

With a view to properly understand the whole case, brief reference to entire evidence recorded during the course of trial is being made hereafter.

PW Tirlok Singh is the person who lives in the neighbourhood of the person who lives in the neighbourhood of the house where incident had taken place. He was the first person to whom as per prosecution information was given by the appellant explaining the circumstances reason whereunder she committed the offence. In no case he can be termed to be a stranger. So far Darshan Kour is conerned. Learned counsel submitted that there is difference of time given by this witness and that mentioned in the FIR. According to her there was no reason for the appellant to have gone to this witness and then having confessed. His behaviour immediately after narration of facts was natural. He after having come to know of the incident called the neighbours and then made an attempt to salvage whatever could be from the situation.

Ramnik Singh is the other witness. He claims that PWs Tirlok Singh and Himmat Singh came to his house and narrated the incident. He went to the spot. On opening of room it was found that two naked dead bodies of Jagdish Singh and Darshan Kour were there. Police had opened the room. In the other room children of Darshan Kour were there which was also opened before coming of the police. He is residing at a distance of 150/200 metres from the house of Darshan Kour. He is a cousin of deceased Darshan Kour. According to learned counsel for the appellant a Can of Kerosene Oil and a Match box, were taken into possession vide seizure memo EXPW1, were not shown to the witness, therefore, no reliance can be placed in his statement. Being a relation of deceased Darshan Kour as also having been informed by PW Tirlok singh was a natural act on the part of witness.

So far PW Sarwan Singh is concerned, his statement is relevant for the purpose of identifying the dead body of deceased Jagdish Singh, his father. He was living separately.

PW Santokh Singh is the father of deceased. He is a signatory to EXPW1 as well as to EXPW1/1, the seizure memo of soti(stick). He also states about PW Tirlok Singh having been informed by the appellant regarding incident in question. According to learned counsel articles which were seized in the presence of witness were not shown to him.

Munshi Khan is one of the persons who had also reached the spot.

Tirlok Singh and Himmat Singh according to this witness came to his house and informed that the house of Darshan Kour is on fire. All of them went to the spot and found that there was smoke in the house. He opened the door of room where children were there. Meanwhile police came. On opening of the other room naked dead bodies of Darshan Kour and Jagdish Singh were lying. No cross-examination was directed to this witness on this material aspect of the case.

Himmat Singh is the other witness, who has gone on record to state that Tirlok Singh called him from outside on 28-10-1993 stating that the house of deceased Darshan Kour is on fire. He came out and found lot of other people at the spot. In one of the rooms children were there. They came out when the door was opened, whereas other room was full of smoke. Fire was extinguished after putting water when police came and it was found that dead bodies of Darshan Kour and Jagdish Singh were there in a charred condition.

Maan Singh is the Devar (husband’s brother) of deceased Darshan Kour. He speaks of the mohallawalas of Darshan Kour having informed the witness that she is having illicit relations with Jagdish Singh. Witness claims to have asked the younger sister of Darshan Kour to ask her (deceased) to desist from this as it is bringing a bad name.

Hardit Singh is another Devar of deceased Darshan Kour. He reached the spot after the dead bodies had been taken and found that the goods lying in it have been burnt.

Jatinder Singh and Sukhbir Singh are the minor sons of deeased Darshan Kour, who stated that their mother was having cordial relation with the appellant. They were in the other room which was bolted from outside. They cried for help but of no avail. They could be taken out only when their room was opened, meanwhile police came.

ASI Jaswant Singh was the investigating officer of this case. After registration of the FIR, according to him he took the dead bodies into possession from the spot, sent those for postmortem, recorded statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C., seized articles like can of kerosene oil, match box, cotton soti(stick) and prepared memos.

As already noted appellant has explained that she had gone to her daughter’s house at Rehari two days prior to the incident in question. She attended the funeral which was on third day. She has denied the incident. To similar effect is the statement of her son-in-law.

From the circumstances of the case briefly narrated hereinabove it is evident that there is no material which directly connects the appellant with the commission of offence. Thus it is clear that the case hinges around circumstantial evidence alone. Next question therefore that needs to be seen is whether firstly there are enough circumstances which bring home the guilt against the appellant, and secondly whether all the links in the chain of circumstances are complete. If answer to these two questions is in the affirmative, appeal will fail, otherwise appellant is entitled to be acquitted.

Admittedly admitted case of the appellant is that her husband Jagdish Singh was residing in the house of Darshan Kour as a tenant. Both husband and wife had hired accommodation from the deceased. This position is even admitted by the appellant in her statement under section 342 Cr.P.C.

Here plea of alibi put up by the appellant needs to be discussed as it will have material bearing on further discussion hereinafter. As already noted there is no suggestion put either to Tirlok Singh or other PWs namely Ramnik Singh, Sarwan Singh, Santokh Singh as well as the investigating officer that the appellant was not present at the spot at the time of commission of the offence when she is alleged to have made voluntary extra judicial confession to PW Tirlok Singh. No doubt suggestion was put to PW Tirlok Singh that because of involvement of his family members in the commission of offence of murder of the husband of Darshan Kour he has reason to state something against the appellant. However when the statement of PW Tirlok Singh is read in its entirity, his entire statement and particularly the part where he speaks of appellant having come to him and narrated as to how she has set both the deceased on fire could not be dislodged. In these circumstances his statement is worthy of credence and cannot be discarded as was claimed on behalf of the appellant. Once this conclusion is arrived at plea of alibi setup by her has to be rejected as also the statement of her son-in-law, DW Manjeet Singh.

What follows with the acceptance of statement of Tirlok Singh and rejection of plea of alibi is that the statement of Ramneek Singh and Mushi Kan when read together clearly bring home the guilt against the appellant.

Here another plea urged on behalf of the appellant may also be noted that conviction cannot be based on extra judicial confession alone unless corroborated. Corroboration strengthens a particular piece of evidence like extra judicial confession but that would not mean to say that where there is a no corroboration it has always to be rejected. In case extra judicial confession and the other evidence inspires confidence, then there is nothing in law that prohibits accepting the same and then passing appropriate orders. So far the plea that FIR is later in point of time and/or genesis of the crime having been with held by the prosecution is concerned, both cannot be accepted. Whatever material was collected has been put before the court during the course of investigation and there is no ground made out to discard the same and or to take another view of the same.

Reliance placed on certain decisions on behalf of the appellant needs to be examined.

"Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab", AIR 1996 SC 607, was the first case relied upon by Ms.Reen. In this case the person to whom extra judicial confession is stated to have been made was a social worker and she was with the police for two days in connection with some other case. Complaint was lodged by such person after three days of the confession. In such circumstances it was held that the confession was surrounded by suspicion, therefore, discarded. This decision does not in any manner improve the case of appellant on account of the view of evidence that has been taken in the appeal under consideration.

Again in "State of Haryana v. Ved parkash", AIR 1994 SC 468, what was held by the Supreme Court is that in a case based on circumstantial evidence approach of the court has to be cautious. Extra judicial confession having been made to a stranger and also its having been tape recorded was held to be influence and involuntariness of the same. Medical evidence also did not support the confession. In this background acquittal was ordered.

In addition to these decisions reliance was also placed on "Sakharam Shankar Bansode v. State of Maharshtra", AIR 1994 SC 1594; "Surnder Kumar v. State of Punjab", AIR 1999SC 215; "Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of Madhya Pradesh", AIR 1989 SC 1890; "Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab", AIR 1987 SC 350; and "Chandubhai Shanabhai Parmar v. The State of Gujarat", AIR 1982 SC 1022.

When a reference is made to these decisions, they have no applicability to the facts of the present case.

On an overall examination of the whole case no exceptiion can be taken to the judgment passed by the trial court. In my considered opinion view taken by the trial court was the only possible and reasonable view on appreciaition of evidence and the same deserves to be upheld.

No other point is urged.

Learned counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing stated that in case her submissions on merits do not find favour, court may consider the desirability of reducing the sentence keeping in view the fact that the appellant is an aged lady with nothing to fall back upon. She had remained in custody for about two years, which fact has been taken note of by the learned trial court also.According to her even if what is alleged is accepted, then it was in the spur of moment that the commission of offence took place.